Sean Sirrine has a long post critiquing the arguments in the law professors' letter opposing the confirmation of Roberts. I don't agree with all of his critique, but he raises a number of sound questions.

Not to be unkind, but the signatories of the anti-Roberts letter are legal academia's junior varsity, at best. There's 1 Harvard signer (a "public interest" professor), 2 Yale (one clinical), 1 Columbia, 1 Stanford, 1 Chicago (clinical), 2 NYU (both clinical), 4 Duke (two clinical), etc. Where are all the famous liberal con law professors? Not willing to go on record against Roberts, apparently. If this is what Roberts' opponents in the academy can come up with, he's a shoo-in.

Richard's observations are appropriate. I wonder, however, whether anyone more knowledgeable than a prospective law-school student has critiques the anti-Roberts letter. I really hope Mr. Sirrine pays close attention in Legal Writing and Research; otherwise he will have a short career as an appellate lawyer. (I sympathize with his views, though like Todd I don't agree with all of them.)

Thanks Shelby, I'll make note of that! I am currently taking Legal Writing and Research at law school, but didn't write my response in a legal format. What reason is there to answer a political paper with a legal one?

As to the content of my response; I completely accept that it isn't the most well formulated argument as I post my first drafts of all my work, but at least it is a response! I would love to know what points you disagree with, (as well as the points Prof. Zywicki disagrees with), and would be delighted to discuss the finer points through e-mail.